• 0 Posts
  • 836 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: August 5th, 2023

help-circle



  • “Again? Ok, no more ambian and rum, this time I am serious.”

    First see if the blood pattern tells me anything of value. Next steps are to find peroxide to clean my clothes of blood and if I am out of luck, improvise. Then I’d see if I can figure anything out about what happened. Wipe off the knife handle, scrub under my nails with bleach, cut the phone lines to the house, break the back door or a window, find anything of value to steal and bury nearby for later retrieval, then do some shots of alcohol, get in the backseat of the car and touch a bunch of stuff in the car, puke, and start walking along the road until I can flag someone down and ask to use their phone to call the cops.

    After that is just a matter of knowing nothing besides going to bed after 2 Ambien and a hearty amount of 94 proof rum and waking up in the unfamiliar car and stumbling into the house and finding the stranger dead, didn’t have my phone, didn’t look for their phone because I wanted to GTFO in case the murderer was still there, went to get help and here we are.

    Best case no big problem, worst case I get a few charges that won’t stick unless the victim’s phone can prove I did it. If it can prove I did it, rip bozo.


  • Not sure what the second question is.

    There are an estimated 741k legal machine guns in the US. There has only been one incident of self-defense with a lawfully possessed machine gun, he was not guilty. There has only been 3 cases of legally owned machine guns being used in a homicide, two of those were cops, since 1934. Machine guns used in crime are unlawfully owned or manufactured.

    The means of self defense does not matter in most cases, that does vary by state though. If you have a handgun and attack me, and I have an M16, and I kill you, I am within my rights assuming I had not provoked your attack.

    Some states that are anti-gun would say that you using a gun against someone with a knife is an uneven use of force, so using a machine gun in those states against someone with a knife who is attacking you would be a big court case. Why they think an attacker should have fair odds and be met with a knife fight is beyond me. The loser of a knife fight dies in the street and the winner dies in the ambulance, shoot the fucker and live to sort out the rest.


  • Prior to 1986, any US citizen could buy pretty much any machine gun they wanted so long as it was registered and the tax on the transfer was paid.

    After 1986, you could not buy a new machine gun but could buy a “transferrable”(registered prior to 1986) machine gun as long as the tax was paid and you pass a background check.

    This lead to a ton of registrations of various means to covert a semi auto gun into a full auto gun, some as simple as two pieces of metal sheet.

    Post '86 machines guns are not transferrable between civilians unless the civilians have a special type of license that qualifies them as a manufacturer or demonstrator of certain weapons.

    The demonstration class requires you to be actively demonstrating the firearms to law enforcement or government agencies as certified by a letter expressing interest or demand. So you have to have a department advocating on your behalf so that you could take transfer of a post 1986 machine gun.

    For manufacturers, there is the expectation of demonstration, so you can’t just make a machine gun for your own usage, it has to be demonstrated.

    So there are only 12 m134 “gatling” guns that were registed prior to 1986 that can be purchased by your average Joe with a clean record. Most are prized pieces in a collection and will likely only see the auction block once a generation. They fire 2,000-6,000 rounds a minute, an M4(full auto AR-15) fires 700-970 rounds per minute.

    There are supposedly also 6 transferrable mk19 automatic 40mm grenade launchers out there which go for over $600k. Problem with those is each round costs between $400 and $3000 and takes 9-18 months to transfer.






  • Its a weird oroboros.

    Poor people wear ripped jeans because fashion has made jeans expensive.

    Rich people like the urban look of ripped jeans because their jeans aren’t ripped and they want to look relatable.

    Fashion companies make ripped jeans for rich people to mimic poor people wearing ripped jeans because they have to.

    Everybody has ripped jeans unless you are lame and can afford to not have ripped jeans.

    So there is like an income bell curve of ripped jeans.




  • True, but our overall guidelines should not cater to exceptions and apply those specific needs to humanity as a whole.

    Cholesterol is a broad term and doesn’t address the specifics necessary to addr iness overall average health for an individual. We do love our neat boxes to put things in.

    Then there is the whole “sugar” issue. There are dozens of sugars and we only associate the term with fructose or sucrose. We can technically name all sorts of things as sugars, but if it doesn’t include sucrose and fructose explicitly, then it “isn’t” sugar on the label.


  • That is my understanding of the available and validated research.

    Vegetable fats are the lesser of two evils when it comes to processed vs unprocessed vegetable sourced fats.

    However, I have come to the conclusion that vegetable fats are lacking in terms of overall benefits vs meat fats.

    Could we eventually adapt to plant fats being better than meat fats? Absolutely, but we haven’t evolved that to be true and too many micronutrients are less available from vegetable fat sources.

    No matter, processed foods are worse than natural sources and meatless diets are harder to maintain health than an omnivorous diet.


  • You are absolutely right to approach any vague information with skepticism, especially when “they” are behind it, because that tends to be code for Jews, reptilians, reptilian Jews, the shadow government, Soros, Soros the reptilian Jew, etc.

    If I can’t call bullshit(flat earth, moon landing hoax, etc.), just get out of the conversation by saying that “I will have to look into that” or something to that effect and changing topics.


  • The Cholesterol thing is mostly true though.

    Saturated fats aren’t a problem for most people, trans fats are a problem. Saturated fats are what you get with things like meat, trans fats are what you get with processed foods and vegetable oils.

    In the early 1900s a Dr. Stefansson MD lived with the Inuit for 6 months. He was used to the diet meta of the times which dictated a vegetable heavy diet was necessary for health, the Inuit don’t have vegetables, they eat fish and fatty meat exclusively. He saw the Inuit as a healthy people and his own health improved during his time with them. He returned to the US and tried to spread his experience, he was dismissed because of racism towards the Inuit. They said that the diet and health of the Inuit has no relevance to the white man because the Inuit are primatives that have no culture or civilization.

    He later did a study on himself and another man where they ate nothing but meat and had regular tests done. They were in perfect health, except when they ate too much lean meat and going back to fatty meats corrected the issue. Doctors, unwilling to find out what they knew was wrong, disregarded the study.

    In the 50s, as a result of Eisenhower’s heart attack, a study was done of diets in 22 countries and their rates of heart disease. Of those 22 countries, 6 of them were chosen to be the basis of the argument that saturated fats are bad because they showed a direct link between a diet higher in saturated fats and a higher rate of heart disease. When you look at all 22 countries, no such correlation can be drawn. That study was reported on heavily and saturated fats were now the cause of heart attacks.

    Later on in the 70s the government got involved with nutrition and diet, in order to address the growing heart disease, and did what government does best and they fucked it up with a commission that was made up of politicians. They spent 10 years wanting to say that fats were bad because there was fatty deposits in patients with heart disease, so fat must be the problem. Their entire argument was that the cholesterol observed in hearts and arteries was a result of eating fatty foods. There was no evidence, only an unsupported hypothesis based on logic about as bulletproof as saying that meat makes maggots because you find maggots on meat. They pointed to the 1950s study as supporting evidence, they remember when it broke as news and held onto it religiously. Doctors at the time disagreed and wanted more studies done before saying that fatty foods were the problem. No evidence from those studies supported removing meat, nuts, cheese, and other fatty foods from your diet improved one’s health. At the end of it, the commission declared that some fatty foods is ok but grains, fruits, and vegetables should be most of your diet.

    The whole fat is bad argument comes from that dietary and nutrition commission. It was also the basis for the food pyramid, which has no foundation in nutritional science.

    Epidemiological studies are an inflammatory aspect of the cholesterol issue. They are poorly conducted studies that show vague associations and then the media pulls small associations from and blow it up to say things like egg yolks cause a greater risk of hearth attack when the data they got didn’t say that.

    Tl;Dr: Eating lots of meat isn’t a problem for cholesterol, you only think that because of decades of bad science.

    So your friend isn’t a conspiracy theorist, they just couldn’t or wouldn’t tell you all of that and what I wrote is like 10% of the whole story.